IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Poverty, Choice and Legitimacy

Listed author(s):
  • Peter Saunders
Registered author(s):

    This paper begins by arguing that the 'poverty measurement debate' has become bogged down in the poverty statistics and has failed to evolve into a consideration of the causes and consequences of poverty. In order to redress this imbalance, it is necessary to develop poverty measures that lead more naturally in these directions. It is argued that poverty can be given a meaning from two different perspectives, the first focusing on what poverty means to those who study it, and the second focusing on what it means to those who actually experience it. In attempting to shed some light on the latter interpretation, the paper presents some survey data in which DSS clients indicate what poverty means to them. the paper then explores three different approaches to measuring poverty, each of which draws on the two key features of poverty, that it is a situation in which choice is severely restricted, and that there must be some socially determined relevance to any poverty measure. The first method estimates and compares poverty using both income and expenditure data as a way of better understanding the choices and circumstances of the poor. The second estimates a poverty line income as a situation where all resources must be devoted to meeting immediate consumable needs and where there are no expenditures on durable and luxury items. The third method, budget standards, is described briefly from the pespective developed in the paper with the aim of highlighting how budget standards research addresses issues of choice and social relevance.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre in its series Discussion Papers with number 0076.

    in new window

    Length: 38 pages
    Date of creation: Mar 1997
    Handle: RePEc:wop:sprcdp:0076
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Sydney 2052

    Phone: +61 2 9385 3833
    Fax: +61 2 9385 1049
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:sprcdp:0076. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.